This is an example of ridiculous government overreach. Should fit right in for California.
If your family sits down for dinner and one person gobbles up all the food before anyone else eats, were they within their rights? Will the rest of the family ever invite that person to dinner again?
No. We implement these controls on consumption in all areas of life. "Limit 2" when there's a coupon, for example. "All you can eat" restaurants don't allow take home and sometimes charge you for what you do not actually eat.
We must limit the wealthy's ability to consume all the goods so there are goods left over for people who need to live in them.
How does this not make sense? Why do you think it's better that someone owns 2 houses leaving 1 without a home, than two families owning 2 homes (one each).
Isn't that a better world?
If lesser-paid people would just leave the area, leaving that area without service workers (or having to pay ridiculous wages for them, driving prices way up for the wealthy homeowners there), the problem will solve itself.
Basically the service industry just ... evaporates. I've seen it happen in areas with a lot of foreign ownership.
How exactly is this a problem?
Too bad for the restaurant owner, but he can re-open in a place where he can hire staff more easily.
Why does the Bay Area need restaurants? If the wealthy homeowners there don't want any lowly restaurant staff living around them, then why should they have any restaurants?
Products and services can't be human rights.
When mobs of zombies start shuffling out of the Pacific and swarming coastal cities, you call the National Guard and impose martial law, "government overreach" be damned. And when things reach this level of dysfunction in the housing market, it is appropriate to start rationally examining practices we've always taken for granted in the past like unfettered real estate investment.
It's no different than a bully on the playground taking the ball from a weaker kid. They both have a right to play with that ball, right? The bullying force just comes from a bank account -- that's all.
No, we shouldn't allow financial bullies to run rampant either.
I don't think it's my right to own all that. I don't need it. Someone else does. Unfortunately, they can't afford it and I can. Doesn't make it right.
It's also your right to give that property away if you like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property
Article 23 of the declaration states: “Every Person has the right to own such private property as meets the essential needs of decent living and helps to maintain the dignity of the individual and of the home.[10]”
-- This is not the case with real estate in America. It isn't dignified.
If anything, I think if the state government is going to do anything, it should help service workers relocate to more affordable places and find good work there. Let the Bay Area real estate market collapse.
I'm simply advocating that all the service workers relocate to other cities. I live in the DC area; there's tons of restaurants and other businesses here where service people work, and while housing is relatively expensive, we don't seem to have the problems with it for lower-paid people that the Bay Area has.